Are HSTs considered 'unsafe'?

[Rhydgaled]

Great to ride on, but need a time out now.

it’s clear they are less safe than more modern trains, and especially in terms of crashworthiness for the driver. On that basis I find ASLEF’s position reasonable, especially given they are now well past their nominal life.

Like many people I will nonetheless be sad to see them go, but it’s clear now is the right time for that. Nothing lasts forever.

it is logical that HSTs should be replaced and replaced soon. They are old. They are due for replacement. That they are not as safe as other stock on the railway is neither here nor there. It is true that they are not as safe as modern trains, but considering the inherent safety of operation on the railway it is not something that means that they need to be immediately withdrawn.

Making plans to withdraw them from service is logical and wise. The industry as a whole would benefit from some sort of wider rolling stock strategy (that old "single guiding mind" thing again!). But there is no reason to blackball them immediately.

Seems to be a common theme in the posts quoted above that:

a. the IC125s are less safe than more-modern designs​

b. the IC125s have reached end-of-life and are due for replacement​

​

The first of these points (a.) seems entirely reasonable and logical, but I disagree with the second (b.). If mark 3s in relatively original condition (ie. still with slam doors such as the 'staycation express' set) were still in active National Rail service and we were discussing those then I would agree on both counts but the fact is that all four National Rail TOCs still using mark 3s have power door fitted examples. A significant sum of money has therefore been spent on them (I would be interested to know roughly how much, eg. was it in the order of tens of thousands or hundreds of millons?) to extend their life beyond the 2020 accessibility deadline. They are old certainly, and plans should be being developed to order replacements for delivery around 2030-2035, but given the investment in life-extension ditching them now seems a little premature. In the case of ScotRail there is also a clear intention by the Scottish Government to electrify most of the Inter7City network by 2035 (with possibly only Inverness-Inverurie not scheduled for wiring until after 2035 I believe). It therefore would make sense to hold on to the IC125s as long as possible (ie. to 2035) so that most of their replacements can be straight-electrics rather than buying bi-modes with a 35 year life for services between the central belt and Aberdeen/Inverness when the diesel engines would only be needed on those routes for the first 5 years of that if introduced in 2030.

 

[bramling]

Seems to be a common theme in the posts quoted above that:

a. the IC125s are less safe than more-modern designs​

b. the IC125s have reached end-of-life and are due for replacement​

​

The first of these points (a.) seems entirely reasonable and logical, but I disagree with the second (b.). If mark 3s in relatively original condition (ie. still with slam doors such as the 'staycation express' set) were still in active National Rail service and we were discussing those then I would agree on both counts but the fact is that all four National Rail TOCs still using mark 3s have power door fitted examples. A significant sum of money has therefore been spent on them (I would be interested to know roughly how much, eg. was it in the order of tens of thousands or hundreds of millons?) to extend their life beyond the 2020 accessibility deadline. They are old certainly, and plans should be being developed to order replacements for delivery around 2030-2035, but given the investment in life-extension ditching them now seems a little premature. In the case of ScotRail there is also a clear intention by the Scottish Government to electrify most of the Inter7City network by 2035 (with possibly only Inverness-Inverurie not scheduled for wiring until after 2035 I believe). It therefore would make sense to hold on to the IC125s as long as possible (ie. to 2035) so that most of their replacements can be straight-electrics rather than buying bi-modes with a 35 year life for services between the central belt and Aberdeen/Inverness when the diesel engines would only be needed on those routes for the first 5 years of that if introduced in 2030.

I don't think (b) is a problem on its own, but it becomes an issue when considered alongside (a).

If a solution could be found to the issue of driver crashworthiness then (IMO) it's justifiable to keep the Mk3s going if desired. But I'm not sure how this could be squared up, short of a very costly piece of work to replace the power cars with something else, and getting that something else to work with the Mk3s - and do so without further compromising the already fragile reliability.

It especially doesn't look good when "the industry" (I know Scotland is essentially separate from England) has been busy sidelining modern stock electric such as the 379s, 350/2s and 365s, whilst at the same time adopting a head-in-sand attitude when it comes to diesels.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If a solution could be found to the issue of driver crashworthiness then (IMO) it's justifiable to keep the Mk3s going if desired. But I'm not sure how this could be squared up, short of a very costly piece of work to replace the power cars with something else, and getting that something else to work with the Mk3s - and do so without further compromising the already fragile reliability.

If the driver crashworthiness is that bad, then the life extension work on the mark 3s to get them past the accessibility deadline should never have been carried out. Without that life-extension work, they would have been life-expired and due for replacement around 2020 - putting the decarbonisation issue to one side breifly*, that would have been the ideal time to replace them with new (as indeed many of them were). However, given the decision made back then to life-extend them, and the fact that replacement didn't align with electrification as it should have done, then I think they need to be kept to serve out their newly extended life, otherwise the life-extension work was a waste of money.

* in an ideal world it would almost be solved by now since BR proposed a rolling programme of electrification years ago which if the government had authorised it would probably be complete by now.